In a Jan. 31 Media Research Center item, Scott Whitlock complains that a CBS analyst said that accusations of prostitution against Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez have "all the earmarks of an orchestrated smear campaign," given its anonymous, uncorroborated sourcing and its promotion by the conservative blog The Daily Caller. Whitlock further complains that CNS played a clip of Harry Reid defending Menendez: "I always consider the source, and all anyone here has to look at is the source where this comes from."

But Whitlock never explains why Reid is correct to make such a statement. Whitlock states that "The allegations were broke by the Daily Caller," but he does not point out that the Daily Caller is a conservative-leaning outfit with a questionable record of accuracy. Whitlock did make sure, however, to let us know that the ethics group CREW "is a liberal organization."

Whitlock goes on to complain: "As a comparison, when lewd details came out about Republican Congressman Mark Foley in 2006, the networks filed an amazing 152 stories in just the first 12 days.: But the Foley story was much better sourced than the Menendez story is.

WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian writes in a Jan. 30 column denouncing the Boy Scouts for considering allowing gays to take part:

Now the big question in all this, of course, is the following: With these sex-abuse cases within the Boy Scouting organization, just as those within the Catholic Church, are we dealing with actual “pedophiles” or with predatory homosexuals?

Virtually all defenders of the gay agenda will angrily denounce the mere suggestion that homosexuals could be victimizers here, or that the two groups could even overlap.

Contrary to the media myth that the Catholic Church’s problems are primarily with “pedophile priests” – terminology which safely absolves homosexuals from suspicion – the major portion of the church’s sexual-abuse problem has been the infiltration of its seminaries by homosexuals. In fact, widespread cases of predatory homosexual priests created a full-blown crisis for the church.

“The real problem the Catholic Church faces,” explains Father Donald B. Cozzens, author of “The Changing Face of the Priesthood,” is the “disproportionate number of gay men that populate our seminaries.”

That's not true. Margaret Smith, a John Jay College criminologist who worked on a 2004 study of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, says it's an oversimplification to blame sexual abuse on gays. While most of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature, "participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man."

Further, analysis of research shows that gay or bisexual men are not more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.

Nevertheless, Kupelian insists on pushing the unfounded link between homosexuality and pedophilia by parsing the definition of a pedophile:

“Pedophilia” is, by definition, sexual contact with a pre-pubescent child. Most of the boys molested by “pedophile priests” have been pubescent teens. Likewise, in the scout world, although we can comfortably indulge the fantasy that there is a wide gulf between the land of homosexuals and the land of same-sex pedophiles, this does not comport with the known facts. (If you want, you can read Scientific American’s explanation here – but bottom line, many of these sex-abuse cases, whether in Scouts or in church, do not involve actual pedophiles.)

The report concludes that the vast majority of clergy sex offenders are not pedophiles at all but were situational generalists violating whoever they had access to. Pedophiles, by definition, seek sexual gratification from pre-pubescent children of one gender and target this age and gender group (especially while under stress). Clergy sexual offenders in the Church were more likely to be targeting whoever was around them (and they had unsupervised access to) regardless of age and gender.

The researchers conclude that there is no causative relationship between either celibacy or homosexuality and the sexual victimization of children in the Church. Therefore, being celibate or being gay did not increase the risk of violating children. So, blaming the clergy abuse crisis in the Catholic Church on gay men or celibacy is unfounded.

Sure, it's convenient for Kupelian to continue to publish discredited myths. But the fact that he does so is just another reason why nobody believes WND.

Earlier this week, WorldNetDaily used "1984"-style imagery to illustrate an article on immigration reform, even though the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Now, WND is illustrating a story on the Boy Scouts of America considering reversing its ban on gays with a picture of convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.

Mike Ciandella uses a Jan. 28 MRC Business & Media Institute post to attack Al Gore's new book "The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change" as nothing more than Gore "pushing the eco-agenda." But Ciandella shows no evidence of having actually read the book.

Ciandella cites as his sources a "promotional video" for the book and a New York Times review -- not the book itself. Another clue that Ciandella didn't read the book is that his post appeared the day before Gore's book actually went on sale.

Ciandella goes on to complain: "Despite Al Gore’s insistence that it is an accepted scientific fact, more than 1,000 scientists are on record dissenting from the so-called 'consensus' on climate change." But how many scientists are there? A lot. Meanwhile, this graphic is more illustrative of the scientific consensus on climate change:

NEW ARTICLE: Vox Day Has IssuesTopic: WorldNetDaily
Theodore Beale's nom de plume may have stopped writing his WorldNetDaily column, but he'll be remembered for his wild conspiracy theories and racially charged, misogynistic rhetoric. Read more >>

Marti Lotman writes in a Jan. 30 Newsmax article: "The University of Chicago Medical Center has announced plans to turn Ronald Reagan’s childhood home in Chicago into a parking lot for President Barack Obama’s library."

That's a complete, utter lie.

As Media Matters explains, while it is true that the University of Chicago Medical Center is planning to tear down a house where Reagan lived for a year when he was 4 years old, there is no evidence whatsoever that it would be torn down for an Obama presidential library -- in fact, a location for the library has not even been chosen -- and the university certainly did not "announce" it would do what Lotman said it did.

Even the Washington Times Communities article from which Lotman lifted her item never claimed that the university made such an announcement. Rather, it engages in a lot of baseless speculation and cites only unnamed "opponents of the demolition " as claiming it would be torn down for an Obama library -- which, again, has not even been awarded to the university as of yet.

Apparently, the idea of Obama trashing Reagan's legacy was too good for Newsmax to fact-check. Or even to double-check basic reading comprehension.

UPDATE: WorldNetDaily latched onto the bogus story as well, reproducing part of the Washington Times article, presumably without permission.

Raging homophobe Les Kinsolving is back at it again in his Jan. 28 WorldNetDaily column, in which he complains that the pastor at President Obama's inauguration "included in his benediction an endorsement of same-sex marriage (as did Mr. Obama) with no such inaugural devotional endorsement of many other alternative sexual orientations."

After reproducing a statement by the presidential inauguration committee about how the Obama administration has a "vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans," Kinsolving sneers: "This inevitably raises the consideration that 'all Americans' include pedophiles, polygamists, polyandrists, urophiliacs and zoophiliacs – among other alternate sexual orientations."

Kinsolving just loves to equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality, despite the complete lack of factual basis for doing so.

Mark Finkelstein writes in his Jan. 29 NewsBusters post of "the current proposals on 'the pathway to citizenship'—AKA amnesty—being floated."

Hate to break it to you, Mark, but creating a path to citizenship is NOT amnesty.

The Gang of 8 immigration reform proposal, for instance, does not call for any sort of amnesty -- which most non-demagogic activists would describe as citizenship without preconditions. ABC reports:

Arguably the most significant detail is the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for many of the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, but the process of obtaining citizenship is neither easy nor short.

Under the "Gang of Eight" plan, undocumented immigrants would be required to register with the federal government. Those without a criminal record would be eligible for "probationary legal status" if they pass a background check and pay fines and back taxes. The status would allow them to live and work legally in the U.S., but they would remain ineligible for federal benefits such as welfare of Medicaid.

Does that sound like amnesty to anyone? Only to people like Finkelstein, apparently. but calling it "amnesty" does not make it so.

Rush uses a Jan. 25 column at Canada Free Press to rant that President Obama wants to take our guns away, just like Mao and Stalin did:

Obama, with the eager cooperation of the American press and the anti-gun lobby, are creating the perception of Second Amendment proponents as manifestly evil. Not misguided, not wrong – but evil. As such, he will set the stage for all “reasonable” Americans to support the wholesale dismantling of the Second Amendment, and if this means wholesale firearms confiscation and the bloodshed to which this will no doubt give rise, so much the better. This will give him legitimacy in his move of declaring martial law – in fact, he will have “no choice,” so it will appear.

This will be, as we’ve seen in so many other nations, the move across the threshold into totalitarian rule. We must never forget that this is a person who grew up studying and admiring Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Castro – men who murdered hundreds of millions in their ascent to total dominion over their respective nations. Just this week, it was reported that a former senior military staffer revealed Obama’s new litmus test for top military brass: Can they give the order to fire on American citizens?

P.T. Barnum (of Barnum and Bailey Circus fame) was a practiced con artist. He taught his people well in the art of distraction; while folks were watching the right hand, the left hand was pulling the trick off right under the nose of the audience. Amazed, they would declare in wonder, “How did they do that?” The answer, of course, was that it happened right under their noses, while they were watching, and they had just been misdirected. Those who have researched the President’s multitudinous executive orders alone know that the Obama administration has mastered this technique.

There is no real discussion in America about gun ownership in America at any level that matters; Obama will confiscate them all – or at least he will attempt to do so. The question is: Will America see how it is being tricked before it is too late?

If I was WND, I'd be demanding that Rush publish his most crazy stuff at the home of his column.

Penny Starr's Jan. 23 CNSNews.com article on Ted Nugent's statements at a gun show stated that he "criticized New York City’s Democratic Mayor Michael Bloomberg for focusing the gun control debate in the United States on deer hunting."

But Nugent said a lot more. As Media Matters documents, Nugent also ranted about President Obama, claiming he is "actually is attempting to re-implement the tyranny of King George that we escaped from in 1776. And if you want another Concord Bridge, I got some buddies."

Curiously, Starr did not find this highly provocative statement newsworthy.

Meanwhile, a Jan. 23 CNS blog post by Gregory Gwyn-Williams Jr. alludes to Nugent's inflammatory statement, but he waters it down by claiming that Nugent said only that "anyone who seeks to undermine the 2nd Amendment must be treated like King George." In fact, Nugent was specifically referring to Obama with his King George reference.

Rose repeatedly uses the word "amnesty" to describe Obama's plan for comprehensive reform, even though the word implies a pardon without preconditions, something Rose knows is not happening since he nonsensically writes that Obama will have "requirements for amnesty."

Aaron Klein asserts in a Jan. 27 WorldNetDaily article that "President Barack Obama has already secretly pledged to the Palestinians he will press Israel into a new round of so-called land-for-peace negotiations." His source? An unnamed, untraceable, anonymous "top Palestinian Authority negotiator." No other backup for his claim is provided, and no named souces whatsoever appear in Klein's article.

For someone who heads an organization purportedly dedicated to "media research," Brent Bozell knows stunningly little about the media.

An interview with Bozell is quoted thusly in a Jan. 25 CNSNews.com blog post:

"Think of a cornered rat. When you do have a rat in a corner, what does that rat do, instinctively? It goes for the jugular," Bozell said, predicting the traditional liberal media's ultimate demise:

"This is what's happening with the press. They're losing numbers - dramatically - the networks have lost fifty percent of their audience. Newsweek was sold for a dollar and they're closing it down now. The NYT could be liner for a parakeet cage."

You know who else got sold for a dollar? The Washington Times. As we've detailed, neither of the conservative newspapers in Washingtion, the Times and the Examiner, are subject to a free market like the New York Times and the Washington Post -- they're owned by rich benefactors who can afford to lose millions of dollars (billions in the case of the Wasghington Times) in the service of generating biased journalism to promote an ideology.

Bozell manages to display an amazing degree of self-unawareness as the interview continues:

Bozell said that liberal media won't see the light and change - they'll just get "ugly" and more vicious "as the ship goes down":

"Their numbers are becoming dramatically smaller. So, what's their reaction? They could look at those number and say, my goodness, look at Fox: it's going up. The only newspaper in the world that seems to be doing well is the Wall Street Journal. Maybe, they're doing something right.

"They're not going to do that. They're going to get more and more militant and fighting back as the ship goes down. Look at CNN, MSNBC."

Wait -- Bozell just likened the media to cornered rats, and he's complaining about media viciousness? Yes -- the terminally angry activist who likened President Obama to a "skinny ghetto crackhead" is complaining about how the media is so mean.

Is Bozell that stupid, or is he just a mendacious liar? We report, you decide.